INTERNATIONAL LAW’S INFLUENCE ON RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS: IN THE CASE OF ERITREA-ETHIOPIA BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) as a case study to explore the role of international law in resolving territorial disputes. Established under the Algiers Agreement following the Eritrean-Ethiopian War (1998–2000), the EEBC was tasked with delimiting and demarcating the contested border between the two states, relying on colonial treaties and international legal principles such as uti possidetis juris. The research highlights both the strengths and limitations of international legal frameworks, illustrating how the EEBC provided a clear legal resolution to the border conflict by awarding the disputed town of Badme to Eritrea. However, Ethiopia’s refusal to comply with the EEBC’s ruling reveals the broader challenges of enforcement in international law. Despite the ruling being final and binding, the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism delayed the resolution of the dispute until political developments, particularly Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s peace initiative in 2018, finally led to normalization between the two countries. This study emphasizes the importance of complementing legal mechanisms with diplomatic and political engagement to ensure compliance and sustainable peace. By situating the EEBC case within the context of post-colonial legacies and regional geopolitics, the article offers new insights into the intersection of law, politics, and history in conflict resolution, contributing to broader debates on the efficacy of international legal institutions.